[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon
Yes, this is one easy way to deal with the issue. Many OGC interface specs have an optional parameter/flag (whatever you wish to call it) that allows optional/and-or vendor specific extensions to an interface/payload to meet specific requirements. If done correctly, then can be properly be validated and communicated. Also, in terms of ISO definitions for profiles and application schemas - if done correctly - what we end up having is/are CAP application schemas. This is very normal best practice in IT when dealing with XML based standards. Hope this is not too cryptic :-) Cheers Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com> To: "'Art Botterell'" <acb@incident.com> Cc: "Emergency_Mgt_TC TC" <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 3:06 PM Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon > "I haven't heard any actual implementer report any of this as a > problem... nor have I heard any technical reason why it should one. > This whole topic seems to be based on a hypothetical concern for some > third parties' sensitivities." > > That speaks for itself. > > Renato is asking that legacy systems be supported by a > system reference flag. It is a reasonable request that > we honor every day when customizing our systems for > customers in response to RFPs. > > One can add the flag in their own namespace or > that of the customer. This means of proprietary > extension is reasonable to use when the normative > specification offers no support. If a CAP validator > balks, the validator is wrong. > > len > > > From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com] > > On Jun 17, 2005, at 6/17/05 1:00 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >> Please respond to the requirement to enable alternative CRSs >> as needed. > > With all due respect, Claude, there's a difference between a > suggestion and a requirement. The requirements for CAP and for EDXL > were considered at some length and adopted by this TC... and > supporting alternate CRSs isn't among them. (And we did go over this > material at some length back during the CAP 1.0 deliberations.) > > And I don't think anyone's credentials have been questioned here. > We've all seen what happens when issue discussions deteriorate into > ad-hominem, and I hope and believe that we're all making a special > effort to stick to the facts and leave opinions and speculation about > other folks' motives to one side. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]